• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_simulation#Computer_simulation_in_practical_contexts

Computer simulation in practical contexts



Like I said it would be a snap.
Click to expand...

So if writing a computer simulation is a snap, go ahead. Impress me. Write a complete structural model for WTC7. Make sure it can include observed damage and fires, and use it to prove that the building could not have collapsed due to fire. It's a snap, you said, so I'll expect this by, oh, the end of next week.
 
beachnut said:
What are you talking about? What does "to scale" mean with respect to a computer simulation?


There was a computer model done. Did you miss it?
Click to expand...

That was a joke. Only an idiot would think the NIST model was was coded properly. The code and documentation aren't even available to the public for verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_model

A scale model is a physical model, a representation or copy of an object that is larger or smaller than the actual size of the object, which seeks to maintain the relative proportions (the scale factor) of the physical size of the original object. Very often the scale model is used as a guide to making the object in full size. Scale models are built or collected for many reasons.

Professional modelmakers often create models for many professions:

Engineers who require scale models to test the likely performance of a particular design at an early stage of development without incurring the full expense of a full-sized prototype.
Architects who require architectural models to evaluate and sell the look of a new construction before it is built.
Click to expand...
 
Clayton Moore said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_simulation#Computer_simulation_in_practical_contexts

Computer simulation in practical contexts



Like I said it would be a snap.
Click to expand...
Just-do-It_o_73839.jpg
 
Clayton Moore said:
That was a joke. Only an idiot would think the NIST model was was coded properly. The code and documentation aren't even available to the public for verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_model
Click to expand...
You know nothing about computer models. NIST's model worked, you lied about the coding. You don't know you lied, because you don't understand what the heck you are talking about. What is your problem; Not enough money to go to engineering school, or anti-science?

Engineers don't need the work of others to do a computer model. Are you an engineer?


What scale is your computer model going to be 1/64 or 1/16?
 
beachnut said:
You know nothing about computer models. NIST's model worked, you lied about the coding. You don't know you lied, because you don't understand what the heck you are talking about. What is your problem; Not enough money to go to engineering school, or anti-science?

Engineers don't need the work of others to do a computer model. Are you an engineer?


What scale is your computer model going to be 1/64 or 1/16?
Click to expand...

HO?
 
jaydeehess said:
...............NIST uses a state of the art fire FEA which is seen to agree well with the observables and therefore one CAN assume that the FEA also is relatively accurate in predicting what is going on where observation is not possible.
..............
NIST has the experienced and trained fire specialists while you have your unexperienced and untrained assumptions. Sorry Chris until you can do better the logical way to go is with NIST..
.
Click to expand...

Christopher 7: Blind faith in a government agency is foolhardy. If you do not know that the government lies a lot, you have not been paying attention.
Click to expand...
the question was why I or anyone else should believe your quallifications to do fire spread simulations or for that matter, engineering
Click to expand...

Still waiting for an answer as to why we should consider C7's fire analysis more compelling than that done by people with training and expertise in that area.
 
beachnut said:
You know nothing about computer models. NIST's model worked, you lied about the coding. You don't know you lied, because you don't understand what the heck you are talking about. What is your problem; Not enough money to go to engineering school, or anti-science?

Engineers don't need the work of others to do a computer model. Are you an engineer?


What scale is your computer model going to be 1/64 or 1/16?
Click to expand...

Engineer? I wear white shirts.
 
beachnut said:
You know nothing about computer models. NIST's model worked, you lied about the coding. You don't know you lied, because you don't understand what the heck you are talking about. What is your problem; Not enough money to go to engineering school, or anti-science?

Engineers don't need the work of others to do a computer model. Are you an engineer?


What scale is your computer model going to be 1/64 or 1/16?
Click to expand...

8 1/2 by 11
 
Clayton Moore said:
Only an idiot would think the NIST model was was coded properly.
Click to expand...


Explain why anyone with more intellect than an idiot would think it wasn't coded properly. If you cannot explain yourself that would put you squarely in the other group.

The code and documentation aren't even available to the public for verification.
Click to expand...
True, and this means you can tell automatically that its incorrect does it? Quite the leap of intuition there CM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_model
Click to expand...

So you read that article and found what exactly to bolster your claims here?
That scale models exist? Yes, they do, but I notice that the article says squat about using models as you suggest.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Test driving new ideas and arguments. I know it's a lot of S but there are the occasional G.
Click to expand...

Why don't you "test drive" a coherent narrative of why/when/how WTC7 was CD'd instead of looking for obscure points in NIST reports to pick apart?

I've never seen such a thing from you, Tony S, Major_Tom, MM or any of the other Truther regulars. It would be refreshing.
 
GlennB said:
Why don't you "test drive" a coherent narrative of why/when/how WTC7 was CD'd instead of looking for obscure points in NIST reports to pick apart?

I've never seen such a thing from you, Tony S, Major_Tom, MM or any of the other Truther regulars. It would be refreshing.
Click to expand...

What we do know is that the building collapses were not due to natural causes. Beyond that I can tell you what I believe and have to qualify it as speculation, as only an investigation would verify it.

There is a lot of talk about paper intensive Enron files and the like being in the SEC offices on the 12th and 13th floor. In other words, it was a garbage can for incriminating case files of elite people that could be taken down with the excuse that damage from the twin towers caused it.

I believe the charges were set when the work was done for Rudy Giuliani's bunker, and that is why he was insistent on the bunker being in WTC 7 over the objections of many. The project cost was 13 million dollars and had access to the entire building for emergency power and life systems integration.

Rudy was a key man here, because he also had control over the cleanup and it seems he cleaned it all up, because NIST got none of the steel from WTC 7 for their investigation and people like Jonathan Barnett weren't given access to it. We know this is true because it is stated in the NIST report and Barnett is on tape saying they were unable to do the type of investigation they normally do with the steel from WTC 7. That is simply shocking given that WTC 7 would have been the first high rise building to completely collapse due to fire.

It isn't hard to see that 911 and the ensuing wars had something to do with oil, and guess who Rudy works for now. He was made a full partner in the Bracewell and Patterson law firm in Houston and the majority of their clients are oil and gas companies. The firm is now called Bracewell and Giuliani.

This is not to say that every person in the oil industry was involved in 911. However, Rudy Giuliani would be on the short list of those who need to be investigated and deposed in any re-investigation of what occurred.

I am not going to argue the above. I only posted it because you asked.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
What we do know is that the building collapses were not due to natural causes. Beyond that I can tell you what I believe and have to qualify it as speculation, as only an investigation would verify it.

There is a lot of talk about paper intensive Enron files and the like being in the SEC offices on the 12th and 13th floor.

I believe the charges were set when the work was done for Rudy Giuliani's bunker, and that is why he was insistent on the bunker being in WTC 7 over the objections of many. The project cost was 13 million dollars and had access to the entire building for emergency power and life systems integration.

It isn't hard to see that 911 and the ensuing wars had something to do with oil, and guess who Rudy works for now. He was made a full partner in the Bracewell and Patterson law firm in Houston and the majority of their clients are oil and gas companies. The firm is now called Bracewell and Giuliani.

This is not to say that every person in the oil industry was involved in 911.
Click to expand...

Looters during a riot.
That seems to be America these days.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What we do know is that the building collapses were not due to natural causes.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

Saying that investigation is flawed (even if you're right) doesn't mean the building collapses were not due to natural causes.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What we do know is that the building collapses were not due to natural causes. Beyond that I can tell you what I believe and have to qualify it as speculation, as only an investigation would verify it.

There is a lot of talk about paper intensive Enron files and the like being in the SEC offices on the 12th and 13th floor. In other words, it was agarbage can for incriminating case files of elite people that could be taken down with the excuse that damage from the twin towers caused it.

I believe the charges were set when the work was done for Rudy Giuliani's bunker, and that is why he was insistent on the bunker being in WTC 7 over the objections of many. The project cost was 13 million dollars and had access to the entire building for emergency power and life systems integration.

Rudy was a key man here, because he also had control over the cleanup and it seems he cleaned it all up, because NIST got none of the steel from WTC 7 for their investigation and people like Jonathan Barnett weren't given access to it. We know this is true because it is stated in the NIST report and Barnett is on tape saying they were unable to do the type of investigation they normally do with the steel from WTC 7. That is simply shocking given that WTC 7 would have been the first high rise building to completely collapse due to fire.

It isn't hard to see that 911 and the ensuing wars had something to do with oil, and guess who Rudy works for now. He was made a full partner in the Bracewell and Patterson law firm in Houston and the majority of their clients are oil and gas companies. The firm is now called Bracewell and Giuliani.

This is not to say that every person in the oil industry was involved in 911. However, Rudy Giuliani would be on the short list of those who need to be investigated and deposed in any re-investigation of what occurred.

I am not going to argue the above. I only posted it because you asked.
Click to expand...

Yup. Rudy was such a "key man", dreaming of a life of oil money from these attacks, that he went directly down to GZ and stood 2 blocks away as Tower 1 collapsed! :jaw-dropp

Could someone help me out with a face palm here?

[I could start going into no wiring found for explosives or, if this is your argument, wireless devices not going off in the 2 years between "the charges were set when the work was done for Rudy Giuliani's bunker," and the attacks; oh, and how Enron executives were tried and convicted, but what would be the point. Your baseless accusation of Giuliani is enough debunking material].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom